JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. Late Shri Pyare Lal felt aggrieved by the award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. No.87-S/2 of 2005/03, decided on 16.2.2009, whereby he was awarded an amount of `.25,000/- as compensation for the damage caused to his building on 25.2.1999, as Truck No.HP-51-0409 had fallen on the upper storey of the building causing damage to the roof and kitchen. Thus, by means of the present appeal, he sought enhancement. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, Pyare Lal had expired and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 5.7.2012. 3. Sh. Sanjeev Prasher, learned counsel appearing for the appellants forcefully argued that the claimant had examined an expert who had given his report Ext.PW3/A with respect to the damage to the tune of `.1,50,000/-, caused to his building due to accident, but the learned trial Tribunal conveniently ignored it without any rhyme and reason and wrongly assessed the compensation to the tune of `.25,000/-. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal wrongly held that no labourer or mason was examined nor any photograph of damaged portion was placed on record. According to him, there has been mis-appreciation and misinterpretation of evidence and other materials on record. It is also submitted that the loss to the building was even more than assessed by the expert, but the learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence in the right perspective. 4. On the other hand, Shri Brij Mohan Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent-New India Assurance Company supported the impugned award and vehemently argued that PW3 Shiv Saran Dass did not conform to the requirement of an expert nor so testified and also submitted that he had inspected the spot much after the alleged incident, i.e. in the month of June, 1999. Also according to him, the expert had nowhere stated in his report about the damage to the tune of `.1,50,000/-, but report only mentions about the damage to the extent of 200 square feet valuing about `.45,680/- which fact can also not be taken into consideration as the claimant has failed to produce the Mason or Carpenter who has worked to repair his house or any receipt of the material used therein. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. 6. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. 6. It is an admitted fact that the truck aforesaid had fallen on the roof of the building and kitchen of the deceased appellant, causing some damage to his property. To substantiate the plea of damage, the deceased-claimant had stepped into witness box as PW4 and stated that the damage, which was caused to the said property was to the tune of `.1,50,000/-. To lend strength his version, he examined PW3 Shiv Saran Dass, a retired Executive Engineer, who had assessed the damage caused vide assessment report Ext.PW3/A. PW3 stated that when he visited the spot, he noticed the damage to the kitchen and the roof of the house and prepared the report applying the rates of plinth area, but significantly, he also stated that on his visit to the spot, the house was already repaired, but the kitchen was in the same condition and no repair was being undertaken, however the material was lying besides it. Accordingly, he prepared the report as desired by the claimant. 7. The claimant did not produce any receipt of the material purchased by him nor he had produced and proved on record how much money was spent by him and who was the labourer employed for the repair of his house, except his own self serving statement, which is not supported by any document. Even PW3 Shiv Saran Dass, who claims himself to be a retired Executive Engineer from Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department did not say anywhere that he was a competent person to assess and value the damaged structure falling within the category of an expert. 8. According to the provisions contained in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the Court has to form an opinion, inter-alia about any question of science or art etc, then opinion of the expert in the aforesaid field is relevant and is admissible in evidence, but before his evidence can be taken into consideration, it is necessary to take into account some technical aspects like that the person so deposing must be competent and is an expert in such technical field. Under this section an expert witness should necessarily be specialised of technical subjects meant for adjudication of Court. Under this section an expert witness should necessarily be specialised of technical subjects meant for adjudication of Court. In other words, the expert witness means such person who has acquired special knowledge in science, art, trade or business and who has special knowledge about market value of lands etc. Unless he deposes or proves to be an expert in the field aforesaid or had studied to a special branch of learning and is specially skilled on those points on which he is asked to state his opinion, his evidence cannot be accepted unless he qualifies such basic requirement. Merely that he retired as Executive Engineer as stated in his address would not mean that he conforms to the requirement of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, in absence of it, he cannot be said to be an expert witness on the subject and his report is nothing, but a waste paper. 9. Though I have examined the evidence as well as issue-wise findings of the learned Tribunal, but I do not find any illegality therein in awarding the amount of `.25,000/- as compensation with interest as contained in the relief clause, as such, the appeal is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Send down the records of the learned Tribunal forthwith.